Letter: Paying for a high growth rate
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The simpleton in me says that Paul Ormerod's conclusion "The larger the increase in labour's share of national income (and, as a corollary, the greater the fall in the share of profits), the more marked has been the fall in the growth rate." is a perfectly axiomatic statement ("Don't follow the European model,: it's collapsing", 27 August).
To take this to its logical conclusion: if labour were to be paid nothing, corporate profits would be massive, nearly all those profits would, in theory, be available for capital reinvestment; and lo and behold, the growth rate of the economy would be huge, providing of course that all the "produce" were to be exported, since nobody (in Britain, for example) could afford to buy anything.
Isn't this though precisely what happens in countries known as the "new tiger economies"? Isn't it also true that once the underpaid population starts to become better educated and their expectations start to rise, they become interested in sharing some of the wealth that they have helped to create, and then, as you point out, less available to grow the economy, as in the case of Japan?
What Mr Ormerod seems to be suggesting is that Britain, even though we have an educated population, has reversed this trend, and the other countries in Europe should follow our example. But this is strictly a short-term phenomenon (by short-term, I mean several decades). Are we not about to change the government in this country (despite the fact that in its lifetime we have enjoyed a better growth rate than our European neighbours) because the national income is not being shared equitably with "labour"?
R C D HICKS
Managing Director
PMC Specialities International
London W1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments